IN THE MATTER OF DAN H

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency ( see Matter of David H., 69 NY2d 792; cf. People v. Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree and petit larceny ( see Penal Law §§ 20.00, 155.25, 165.45 [2]; Matter of Kadeem W., 5 NY3d 864; Matter of Nikson D., 15 AD3d 656; People v. Mitchell, 126 AD2d 754). Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the trier of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses. Its determination should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record ( see Matter of Jabari W., 18 AD3d 767; Matter of Nikson D., supra). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the findings of fact are not against the weight of the evidence ( cf. CPL 470.15).